Mark ingram and running game

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Originally Posted by Saintsfan06
Do you guys feel that mark Ingram could be the featured back this playoffs now in the playoffs and next year if he could stay hungry?Also can Ingram and robinson be the one two punch next ...

Do you guys feel that mark Ingram could be the featured back this playoffs now in the playoffs and next year if he could stay hungry?Also can Ingram and robinson be the one two punch next year and we release or trade PT?

A bizarre scenario but not ridiculous. PT hasn't looked like his old self. Is it the 30 year wall? Has he lost a step? Was there some nagging injury we aren't aware of? Or did the O-line troubles affect him more than we realize?

There's no value in a trade, he's 30 years old and has never been a feature back. Releasing him frees up a much needed 3 million in cap space, no dead money at all.

Loomis never releases his players until its painfully obvious it needs to be done. PT isn't there yet. I'll bet we ride out his final year.

I don't think the having 15 rushes thing is the problem. It's more about having plays clustered together. When you go in there, run the ball... and don't get to rush again until a series or 2 down the road... you are going to run into a "rhythm" problem.

Think that we over-substitute at times, got too many moving pieces. The idea is to keep people fresh and get mismatches... but it has some unintended consequences.

Again.. the "rhythm" problem is a myth.

Lynch ave 18 caries/game. Against Tampa he had 24.

Go through the play by play, other than the opening drive he had about 2-3 carries per possession. Any mythical rhythm gained by 3 carries is gone after the defense takes the field..

The "I need a minimum of x carried per game" is what people that want the ball more say, and lets face it. All RBs and Receivers want the ball more.

You know why I hope we never have this "show case" running back? Jamal Charles went out of the game and their game plan was never the same. Davis was able to run but he was no J. Charles and that hurt them in the 4th qtr.

I would rather have two 7 (out of 10) running backs than a 10 and a 4 and have the 10 go down.

The "I need a minimum of x carried per game" is what people that want the ball more say, and lets face it. All RBs and Receivers want the ball more.

You know why I hope we never have this "show case" running back? Jamal Charles went out of the game and their game plan was never the same. Davis was able to run but he was no J. Charles and that hurt them in the 4th qtr.

I would rather have two 7 (out of 10) running backs than a 10 and a 4 and have the 10 go down.

Sean Payton learned that lesson years ago.

After the first drive, he didn't get a run again until the 2nd quarter, and only had 2 more runs for the entire half. That's only a portion of the equation though, as scheme differences come into play, as TB may have made adjustments.

Now I do think multiple backs is important in the NFL. Keeps the players fresh while the D-line gets exhausted, but if you think that a back can just walk onto the field after a long wait and roll off a 10 yard run, just as easily if he's in the game rhythm.... I just can't see it. A big part of being a running back is getting a feel for how the defense moves and what will be available to you.

After the first drive, he didn't get a run again until the 2nd quarter, and only had 2 more runs for the entire half. That's only a portion of the equation though, as scheme differences come into play, as TB may have made adjustments.

Now I do think multiple backs is important in the NFL. Keeps the players fresh while the D-line gets exhausted, but if you think that a back can just walk onto the field after a long wait and roll off a 10 yard run, just as easily if he's in the game rhythm.... I just can't see it. A big part of being a running back is getting a feel for how the defense moves and what will be available to you.

If that much BS goes into whether a RB can run the ball effectively he needs to go go Canada. A good RB only needs blocking, and even that some times isn't needed.

My point is that Marshawn Lynch doesn't need this mythical rhythm to be a damn good effective running back..

That's like saying that because Colin Kaepernick plays a team and throws a touchdown on the first play of the game, has a lot of success in the first quarter and Drew Brees struggles early, that Brees won't come on later, find a rhythm and win a game that Kaepernick would lose.

Playing RB isn't just grabbing the ball and running through a hole. Good running backs create holes, they maneuver their way through the defense. It's about knowing what's being offered and figuring out how to exploit it. Having multiple touches is going to affect the internal reasoning that you have as a RB when you approach a defense.

That's like saying that because Colin Kaepernick plays a team and throws a touchdown on the first play of the game, has a lot of success in the first quarter and Drew Brees struggles early, that Brees won't come on later, find a rhythm and win a game that Kaepernick would lose.

Playing RB isn't just grabbing the ball and running through a hole. Good running backs create holes, they maneuver their way through the defense. It's about knowing what's being offered and figuring out how to exploit it. Having multiple touches is going to affect the internal reasoning that you have as a RB when you approach a defense.

QBs "rhythm" is not against defenses but with their receivers; snap, step, step, read, throw. Apples to oranges.

Yes, playing RB is about taking the hand-off and finding a hole. As far as the rest, you either have vision or you do not and it has nothing to do with rhythm.

There is no repetitive pattern in a football game for a RB. From where he lines up; to blocking, holes, defensive fronts, all change. Your more than welcome to keep replying, it will not effect the definition of rhythm or that it is a myth that RBs need it.

There is no repetitive pattern in a football game for a RB. From where he lines up; to blocking, holes, defensive fronts, all change. Your more than welcome to keep replying, it will not effect the definition of rhythm or that it is a myth that RBs need it.

That research is rather meaningless and has nothing to do with what people talk about when they say that Ingram needs to get into a rhythm.

The more times in a row a running back runs the football, the more likely it is for the defense to play the run.

There is a reason that we run the full back or do a QB sneak on 4th and 1, because they know the run is coming. With each successive run, a team is forced to play tighter defense. If anything, I'd like to see this research be taken and combined with passing the ball via play action after successive runs.